Who Killed Kennedy? Thomas Buchanan

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

I understand your being upset over someone speculating about a family member in a way that might present a false image to history.

"Upset" is not how I would describe my feelings. I don't think you've depicted my father in a negative light, so my attempts at setting the record straight are more about getting the facts right rather than his image.

However, I acknowledge that my irritability at your way of reasoning did show a bit too much in the way I expressed my position, and for that I apologize. I usually try to be a bit more diplomatic in how I word things. You saying...

you should have a little patience

You should be a little more tolerant

...tells me that I've pushed some buttons, and I appreciate the effort you're making not to let it show more strongly than the reactions above.

When you say...



… I would have to concur that you're not understanding what I'm objecting to.

When you say...



… I am not objecting to the statement, I'm disagreeing with your notion of what constitutes "healthy" speculation. I don't consider it to be sound speculation to stray too far from verified facts. Where the line is, I can't tell you with any particular formula, but when I see the way you reason I don't recognize it as qualifying as the kind of speculation that I would consider "healthy" or sound.

So that just means that we may have to agree to disagree on what constitutes acceptable speculation.

But just to finish up with this particular instance of reasoning, when you say…



… I disagree with the notion that that's what a competent investigator would speculate. In fact, that, to me, would be an indication that, on the contrary, the investigator was not competent because they were letting themselves get too carried away with their biased imagination instead of first digging up as many verifiable facts as they could about all of the aspects they should consider. Instead of creating a narrative with no foundation in facts, they should start with questions that merely guide them in where to look for verifiable facts. So, for instance, if they were naive (perhaps I should even say indoctrinated) about the connection between American communists and the KGB, it might be legitimate for them to ask, "Since he was a member of the US Communist Party, is it possible this man was working for the KGB?" But since trustworthy evidence of that kind of thing might be difficult to dig up, it might not be a pursuable line of questioning. Either way, it would be unsound to go from just leaving it as a question to turning it into an elaborate, fact-free, speculative narrative.

As I say, this concept of what constitutes valid speculation may be simply one of the things about which you and I will always disagree.

When you say...



… you state all of this as fact, but you haven't given citation of any credible sources for me to form my own opinion about which claims you're making are more than just speculative theories.

You are forgetting RFK sent a clear message to Bolshakov and Khrushchev that right wingers were responsible for his brother's death.

I'm not "forgetting" that RFK sent the message in question, I'm just questioning whether it was anything more than a theory of his, based on suspicions rather than factual evidence. If there is some source material on this to prove what you're saying, I'd be glad for you to cite it for me. But I can't just take your word for it, given that you and I have different concepts of what qualifies as sound reasoning and sufficient evidence.

Oh, and RFK jr came out on the Charlie Rose show and said his father questioned the Warren Report.

To express this bluntly again, "So what?" (Don't take the expression for anything more than just a quick way to express my perception that your argument holds no water). What does it prove, beyond the fact (of which there's a record, isn't there?) that RFK wanted to re-open the investigation? Unless there was something more significantly evidential said that you haven't mentioned, it doesn't say anything about what kind of verifiable evidence (if any) RFK might have based that intention upon. He could just as easily have wanted to reboot the investigation to see if any evidence could be found.

Again, you may still disagree with me that there are some serious problems with stating things as fact when they're only speculations, and speculating in ways that float too far away from any factual foundation. But that fundamental disagreement is just how it will have to be between us.

I'm sorry but from what has already been revealed about the assassination and its cover up it would be very hard to describe it as an "unthrilling" event.

Well, then, good thing that's not how I described it! ;-) The " thrilling explanation" I was referring to was the insider-leak explanation you gave about how my father had managed to come up with his theory. The reality I was saying was a lot less glamorous was that my father just used his own analytical mind and politically-informed perspective to make sense of ordinary, publicly available media reports and their contradictions. I wasn't referring to how much of a "thriller" quality there was to the assassination itself.

So… can we agree to disagree and just leave it at that?
:-)
Marian

I found the website honouring your father's memory to be most excellent, Marian. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

My uncle, Jeremiah O'Leary, also worked for the Star, and had a few bit parts in history concerning Jack Kennedy's death.

Hope to hear more from you. Peace. +